The truth is I don't think what the law school is doing is so bad, within the context of the affirmative action law we have from the Supreme Court, which approved of the "critical mass" theory in Grutter. The law school doesn't have enough black students to get the critical-mass effect in all of its small sections, so it concentrates black students in some of the sections and leaves one section with no black students at all.

The idea of "critical mass," which justified taking race into account in admissions, is — according to Grutter — to have enough students of a particular minority in the classroom so that the minority student in the classroom isn't looked upon as expressing some sort of typical minority viewpoint. The idea is to overcome stereotypes and let all the students see each other as individuals.

48 comments:

"The truth is I don't think what the law school is doing is so bad, within the context of the affirmative action law we have from the Supreme Court, which approved of the "critical mass" theory in Grutter."

Sure, once you've made up stuff (equal protection requires critical mass -- or was it substantive due process?), and shoved it down everybody's throat (do this or else), the resulting absurdities aren't "so bad."

...which justified taking race into account in admission, is — according to Grutter — to have enough students of a particular minority in the classroom so that it doesn't seem that the minority student in the classroom isn't looked upon as expressing some sort of minority viewpoint.

I thought the claimed purpose of liberal anti-Asian/white racism, AKA "diversity", was to enable the expression of some sort of minority viewpoint.

Reed Frye, a second-year law student, said in an email that first-year black and Hispanic students “largely love the policy,” adding that they seem more assertive and empowered than he remembers feeling as a black first-year student, before the policy was implemented.

Frye suggested that the absence of black students in one super-mod disadvantages white students in that mod. He added, however, that the barriers for underrepresented minorities overcome by this policy outweigh the detriments (of a lack of diversity) to white students “by several orders of magnitude.”

I suppose the argument is that these assignments based on race do not violate Article I, §31 of the California Constitution (Prop 209)because they are not preferences in favor of or against any students based on race.

Theoretically, those white students in the section without any black students are being deprived of all of the wondrous benefits of diversity -- but I guess that's too small a burden to sue over.

Too small a burden to sue over, or exactly what the white students want (and so won't complain that they get it)? Those students will just have to live with their racism another semester. Hopefully, at that time, they will receive their critical mass of minority wisdom.

The Left LIVES to view all students as just cogs of their skin color. What BS are you hoping to peddle here?

I don't see how a black Progressive and an Asian Progressive are more important for diversity than a white conservative. It might make the circle jerk a little less like a Benetton ad, but still.

Intellectual diversity is the only diversity that matters. Your skin color is boring as shit.

The truth is I don't think what the law school is doing is so bad, within the context of the affirmative action law we have from the Supreme Court, which approved of the "critical mass" theory in Grutter.

You've also said you don't find Critical Race Theory shocking, indicating a stunning lack of concept on how ordinary people actually think.

Don't think that, if violence erupts, that the academics will be protected.

Frye suggested that the absence of black students in one super-mod disadvantages white students in that mod. He added, however, that the barriers for underrepresented minorities overcome by this policy outweigh the detriments (of a lack of diversity) to white students “by several orders of magnitude.”

So, "Shit I like is good. Shit I don't like is bad". Note I make his argument more cogently than this alleged smart kid can. Apparently, AA had to work hard to get his moronic ass enrolled.

Too small a burden to sue over, or exactly what the white students want (and so won't complain that they get it)? Those students will just have to live with their racism another semester. Hopefully, at that time, they will receive their critical mass of minority wisdom.

Would it be racist to point to Mexico and Africa and question as to what the benefits of minority wisdom actually are?

If it's wrong because they're in the US, then white kids and Asian kids can fill that same niche. Clearly, their race is the key part.

"to have enough students of a particular minority in the classroom so that it doesn't seem that the minority student in the classroom isn't looked upon as expressing some sort of minority viewpoint."

This is an amusing example of the racism of the progressive left. I saw the movie "The Martian" last night and it was pretty good. One thing I noticed, and the same phenomenon is present in TV commercials, is the visual presentation that blacks are about half the nation and the most intelligent half, at that. Notice how investment councilors and other high status types are presented as black far out of the proportion that they really make up. In the movie, two of the top geniuses in "astrodynamics" (whatever that is) are black, one of whom has short dreadlocks.

Asians, however, threaten the self confidence of leftists who always have to see them selves as smarter than everybody else. The Asians have so far bought the leftist argument but they may be wising up as they are increasingly subjected to quotas.

All Grutter taught us was that the endless cartwheels done by sensitive Justices to defend racist policies left the law a complete mess in this area. I almost would have preferred a blunt, honest ruling that said "racial discrimination is actually okay now, because there are too many instances where we want to use it for the greater good." It'd be a lot less confusing than O'Connor's putrid "racist policy is okay so long as there's just a little bit of it and it's not too obvious, and maybe only for say the next twenty years." What sort of idiotic standard is that? How could anyone know whether their policies would hold up under such a mushy standard?

We have a clear divide in this country between those who think people are individuals and should be treated as such, and those who simply can't see past everyone's racial categories. In that latter group there are those who aren't comfortable with the implications of their terrible beliefs, and so they're trying to split hairs to justify using racism for "good" purposes and are frustrated when it accomplishes none of these purposes.

Next AA case, the Court should be required to come up with a clear standard that enables schools to figure out whether they're in compliance or not. Pick one--racism's just fine, or it's not.

Brando: Even outright permission to be racist would not work, not with today's "fluid" understanding of race. Is Obama black or white? Is the Oregon murderer black or white? What about Rachel Dolezal? What about George Zimmerman, the "white hispanic"? What about my own kids? What about my sister-in-law's kids?Is the law going to recognize an individuals ability to "self-identify" and respect that, or not? Or are we (and I see this as a much more likely possibility) going to go down the road of legally identifying everyones racial makeup in the exact same way the old South Africa did? We all know how well that turned out.

The idea of "critical mass," which justified taking race into account in admissions, is — according to Grutter —

Why explain the "idea" of critical mass rather than point to some evidence of success? Is it because there isn't any?

What evidence did the defendant present that convinced the Supreme Court to create this exception to the equal protection clause, the Civil Rights Acts, and longstanding American principle? It was just the assertions of various school administrators, right? Was this the appropriate standard?

How is the equal protection clause so powerful it mandates gay marriage - redefining a universal human institution that predated the constitution by millenia - but simultaneously so weak it doesn't prevent racial preferences in government action - the very circumstance it was written to proscribe?

What is so different about these cases that the more egregious violation is reinforced while the lesser is considered so egregious we completely rewrote societal rules? Should we just note that in both cases those who control legal education and the government achieved their political preferences and therefore understand the Supreme Court's role is providing the imprimatur of legalism to purely political decisions.

"Brando: Even outright permission to be racist would not work, not with today's "fluid" understanding of race. Is Obama black or white? Is the Oregon murderer black or white? What about Rachel Dolezal? What about George Zimmerman, the "white hispanic"? What about my own kids? What about my sister-in-law's kids?Is the law going to recognize an individuals ability to "self-identify" and respect that, or not? Or are we (and I see this as a much more likely possibility) going to go down the road of legally identifying everyones racial makeup in the exact same way the old South Africa did? We all know how well that turned out."

Don't get me wrong--such permission would be by no means desirable. But as a legal standard, it would "work" in that then anyone can discriminate for any reason they choose, as of course the current model of the racialist Left is that discrimination is ok as long as you have "good" intentions. If you don't want to ban all racial discrimination, full stop, then be honest and say all racial discrimination is ok, under whatever standard you choose.

Ann Althouse said...The law school doesn't have enough black students to get the critical-mass effect in all of its small sections, so it concentrates black students in some of the sections and leaves one section with no black students at all.

And that's the idea, or was, behind majority-minority voting districts, too--but depending on whom you ask now that's either still vitally necessary or clearly racist. Those districts either empower underrepresented minorities or disperse otherwise-cohesive interest groups (and thereby blunt their power); different groups within the Left have different opinions (based, I'm sure on their tactical considerations).Majority-minority districts historically ensured that some minority reps got elected, and people used to be happy with that. It does mean that the overall minority vote is less important in the other districts, though, and so lately some minority groups have complained about that. Turns out it's racist either way, but some people are catching on that drawing districts like this might violate the "one person one vote" principle (since you get differently-weighted districts overall)--I think one of those types of cases is going before the Court this session.

Rick said...Why explain the "idea" of critical mass rather than point to some evidence of success? Is it because there isn't any?

Empirical evidence for the type of diversity the Left/academy favors is thin on the ground generally, Rick, and where present tends to be a bit, shall we say, less than rigorous. [There are some large studies that show companies within a sector that had X% of female employees did better than companies with X-20%, but the direct comparison I saw weren't very convincing nor did they posit particularly-compelling causal theories. The only one I can remember that related to race had to do mostly with Asian-American employees and if I recall correctly counted people with familial relationships the researchers considered qualifying and not self-reported minority status.) Anyway, asking for evidence is probably itself evidence of bigotry, and definitely evidence of wrongthink.

Brando: I think we basically agree, but I find the quagmire ahead of today's trends fascinating (in the same way that a motorcycling buddy of mine once described his view of the approaching guardrail during a crash). For example, you say "But as a legal standard, it would "work" in that then anyone can discriminate for any reason they choose, as of course the current model of the racialist Left is that discrimination is ok as long as you have "good" intentions."Of course the first half of your sentence is basically the status quo prior to the "Heart of Atlanta" decision - we can all be sure the left does not want to go there intentionally. So the politically active part is your second key phrase: "good intentions". Talk about a can of worms. (Although it just occurred to me that forcing the State / prosecution to prove a criminal "mens rea" might be fun. Though I suppose most of the cases would be civil law, not criminal, so it's moot.)Somehow I've got to tie this in to the discussions on "Yes meand yes" law....

In furtherance of this swamp, I noted while previously posting about the "white hispanic" Zimmerman, that there is a Wikipedia page defining the term, and containing a lengthy discussion about OMB and Census Bureau definitions of this and related terms.It's stuff like that which led me to sadly conclude that we are headed in the South African direction.

The concept of "critical mass" is presumably stolen from nuclear physics. Although even there it depends on the geometry of the fissile material, and whether it's surrounded by something that reflects neutrons back into it.

"Of course the first half of your sentence is basically the status quo prior to the "Heart of Atlanta" decision - we can all be sure the left does not want to go there intentionally. So the politically active part is your second key phrase: "good intentions". Talk about a can of worms."

Absolutely--which is why allowing any discrimination must require allowing all discrimination, because who can measure another's intentions? We can't even agree on results--racialists argue that affirmative action has a positive effect on equalling the playing field, despite much evidence to the contrary, so if I argue that keeping blacks and whites away from each other at school will "help" blacks and reduce the racial achievement gap (say, by helping black students' self esteem by not making them compete with higher achieving whites and Asians) then how can someone prove otherwise--how can they prove that I really am not just a segregationist who wants to keep blacks from dating whites and contaminating the gene pool?

See, that's exactly the problem with wishy washy standards the O'Connors created--we're stuck measuring when there's "too much" weight given to race, we're stuck looking at the government's stated intentions, and we're stuck having no idea which schemes pass scrutiny.

Ideally, we ban all government racial discrimination (because it is, technically, the law) but if these racialist hacks want to defend their hateful schemes, then they may as well open the door to all of it. Otherwise it's just an excercise in tricking the courts.

There are so many lunacies packed into this short post that I'm dizzy trying to shoot at the best one.

So how about this: the unhinged, unsupportable, pomo-invented assertion that such a thing as "minority opinion" exists for any period of time longer than a nanosecond. Clue for the faithful: a group cannot have an opinion, only an individual can. A group may reflect the accumulated opinions of its members, and even use this accumulation to enforce uniformity as a social practice via the misnamed "groupthink" collective unconscious, but only individuals can think and opine.

As a member of a bona fide, fully-vetted and sanctified Oppressed Victim Group™ (LGBTQWXYZetc) I can attest to my complete inability and unwillingness to ascribe to the "minority opinion" we purportedly all have. Even more unbelievable, I know lots of LGBTQWXYZetc folks who are similarly opinion defective. Yet respectable people like Berkeley professors and Supreme Court justices unreflectively repeat such leftist cant as if it were Gospel truth so effectively that few even think to question it!

But here's my favorite part, illustrating the eternal beauty of Catch-22: if I as a minority within my minority dare question the "minority opinion," my own minority opinion will be denounced not just by fellow LGBTQWXYZetc-ers, but by everyone else feeling duty-bound to protect the official minority opinion! And thus, by magic, my minority opinion is disappeared.

You gotta admire the brilliance of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory and the way they've persuaded so many of us to self-lobotomize.

Deconstructionist theory ruined the study of literature in universities but it's a good theory to learn and apply to the social sciences. In that realm it's a correct description of the situation. Certain books venerated, certain questions allowed, certain people "my people", "us" or "good" by definition, certain others, "othered." And all definitions, situations subject to reversal. No basis in reality for anything - since the situation is that reality is defined and then inhabited like a video-game.

Hmm, my daughter is the only white female in her differential equations course. According to Prof. Althouse's crackpot (by which I mean unreplicable) psychological theories, she's doomed to fail. We'll see. Real women have a disturbing tendency to confound people like Prof. Althouse, who think entirely in academically-approved political categories.

The idea is to rape the potential wealth of people who don't share evil like you share evil; it took you years and years of indoctrination to conform, and you with your IQ, and therefore any Tom or Dick or Harry that wants dibs better learn to fight better than Buckley did almost like HA HA a near century or some shit ago. Otherwise fuck it, *fuck them*, just keep paying.

Capitalism was once the "garlic" to this Marxist poison*. Some really bad rich people are dead now and their kids wasted the money believing drugs and anything anti/other than Jesus are or will be the answer. Because these losers draw upon Christ as their savior, questions about that 2000 year old motive must be firstly nothing like foremost.

Reality, as in comparing talk to lifestyle, is always in flux, by (and thank) God.

*Tiny brains, such as anyone who thinks they know what the public wants, therefore every single TV producer, don't understand garlic repels the threat.

Poison treatments for anything but a "garlic overdose" as I say, for a garlic consumption way-beyond-the-norm, are a window into the mind of a soul lacking light.

Kirk Parker: Much as I would like to have a flamethrower under my car (note to FBI: Not Really. I really want tank treads under there, since I commute on US-101.) as far as I know the flamethrower anti-highjacking device only became a thing well AFTER the abolition of apartheid. If we have to go through the whole overt racist government discrimination thing, the prison-and-torture thing, the MRAPs full of cops with automatic weapons thing, and the necklacing-with-gasoline-fire thing, before I can have my very own flamethrower, then I'm willing to take one for the team. Sigh. When did all the FUN go out of my life?